Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

(a) legit criticisms of my work, and (b) how I structure posts to cue you whether you might want to read them or not. It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. Jeez. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism. The correct criticisms of my work are: 1 – it’s not published (that’s true). 2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.) 3 – I conflate (not on purpose) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with political advocacy (market government) with the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism. 4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. The problem is, that’s an entirely different scope of work. And I don’t engage in the pragmatism of conflating the via negativa of law (truth) and the via-positiva of education (religion). So in keeping with the competition between via-positiva and via-negativa my intention is to produce two works, the first law, the second, ‘religion’. I have had this intention for a very long time. I don’t see how to avoid it. I had originally intended to incorporate the law in the CENTER of the ‘religious’ prose with fables in the beginning and history at the end. But that would lead to a ridiculously large tome no one could possibly carry around (i’ve tried). It is possible to condense the scientific content into a constitution of Natural Law (‘the law’) and place that in the center between myth and history. And so I might do that (if I live long enough). But I don’t want to conflate using pragmatism, the necessary competition between very clear truth, and very clear wisdom. That would only continue to duplicate the CRIME of the Abrahamists. 5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it is actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle. 6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision. 7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst. But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar. And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions. Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context. In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions. Now, for those that don’t understand this is the format I use in posts in order to ‘cue’ you as to the content of the post. THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS 1 – A POST ————————– THIS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT (this cues you to important stuff) And this is the body text here. Particularly if I break it into paragraphs. –“this is quoting someone else”– ***this is quoting myself*** … this … … is a … … … series that you might want to learn. |SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition SUBHEADING And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content. Signature Line I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’. 2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH ————————– this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination. 3 – A PERSONAL OPINION ————————– (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.) 4 – A DIARY ENTRY ————————– (diary entry) this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other. =========================== Closing: I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine THIS IS A REVISION OF AN EARLIER POST. I tend to repeat this post every six months or so. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/23/the-formatting-of-posts/

(a) legit criticisms of my work, and (b) how I structure posts to cue you whether you might want to read them or not. It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. Jeez. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism. The correct criticisms of my work are: 1 – it’s not published (that’s true). 2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.) 3 – I conflate (not on purpose) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with political advocacy (market government) with the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism. 4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. The problem is, that’s an entirely different scope of work. And I don’t engage in the pragmatism of conflating the via negativa of law (truth) and the via-positiva of education (religion). So in keeping with the competition between via-positiva and via-negativa my intention is to produce two works, the first law, the second, ‘religion’. I have had this intention for a very long time. I don’t see how to avoid it. I had originally intended to incorporate the law in the CENTER of the ‘religious’ prose with fables in the beginning and history at the end. But that would lead to a ridiculously large tome no one could possibly carry around (i’ve tried). It is possible to condense the scientific content into a constitution of Natural Law (‘the law’) and place that in the center between myth and history. And so I might do that (if I live long enough). But I don’t want to conflate using pragmatism, the necessary competition between very clear truth, and very clear wisdom. That would only continue to duplicate the CRIME of the Abrahamists. 5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it is actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle. 6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision. 7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst. But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar. And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions. Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context. In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions. Now, for those that don’t understand this is the format I use in posts in order to ‘cue’ you as to the content of the post. THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS 1 – A POST ————————– THIS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT (this cues you to important stuff) And this is the body text here. Particularly if I break it into paragraphs. –“this is quoting someone else”– ***this is quoting myself*** … this … … is a … … … series that you might want to learn. |SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition SUBHEADING And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content. Signature Line I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’. 2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH ————————– this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination. 3 – A PERSONAL OPINION ————————– (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.) 4 – A DIARY ENTRY ————————– (diary entry) this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other. =========================== Closing: I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine THIS IS A REVISION OF AN EARLIER POST. I tend to repeat this post every six months or so. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/23/the-formatting-of-posts/